In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

accurately the reality of what ordinary people experienced. This realism did not insist so much on the careful documentation of social life as it did on the writer’s effort to grasp the values and aspirations of those who struggled to earn their living. Lemonnier and André Thérive, an author whose works Sans âme and Le charbon ardent helped define the populist novel, recalled the examples of Maupassant and Huysmans as models for writing novels that explore the motivations and beliefs of characters through careful description. Ouellet’s examination of Thérive’s“naturalisme interne” (25) discerns a desperation in Thérive’s writing that reflects the spiritual suffering of common people with little or no sense of class consciousness and of the need for collective struggle. Trottier observes that Lemonnier defined himself as a populist through his open disdain for the bourgeois novel rather than through a sense of solidarity with the working classes. The other contributors offer essays on works by Luc Durtain, André Baillon, Marc Bernard, Marcel Aymé, Henri Pollès, Louis Guilloux, and Claire Goll. For the most part these authors have been associated with the populist novel to varying degrees, but in all cases the notion of populism in literature has defied clear definition because of the ambiguity and contradictions between writing about, for, and from the perspective of common people. Those like Henry Poulaille who militated for a proletarian novel coming from the people and representing their interests attacked the position of Lemonnier and Thérive as inauthentic and condescending toward the working classes. Although the contributors show that populism in the novel during the 1930s was a continuation of naturalism without Zola’s scientific pretentions and deterministic representations, and thus part of a longer literary tradition of realism, it is not clear why populism should draw renewed critical interest. As the editors explain, few continue to read Lemonnier, Thérive, or the other writers associated with the movement. Rediscovering their forgotten works does show that “l’histoire littéraire n’est jamais impartiale et toujours partielle” (17), but why should these particular works merit attention? Do the themes expressed in the works and does the manner in which they portray the life of common people resonate with contemporary literature? Is the current literary field confronting a populist/proletarian controversy not unlike the one between Lemonnier and Poulaille? Providing answers to questions like these would situate the otherwise excellent insights presented in this collection of essays within a broader critical discourse. Hartwick College (NY) Mark Wolff Piva,Marika.Nimphaea in fabula: le bouquet d’histoires de Chloé Delaume.Passignano: Aguaplano, 2012. ISBN 978-8-897-73821-3. Pp. 153. 16 a. Cette étude, dont le titre fait écho à un récit de Delaume, présente une analyse poussée de l’œuvre de cette écrivaine, se concentrant sur les thèmes et sur la forme 228 FRENCH REVIEW 89.2 Reviews 229 (l’écriture et ses licences poétiques et linguistiques) et non sur le “parcours littéraire” de Delaume. Adoptant plusieurs approches, notamment le structuralisme et le formalisme, Piva nous montre la relation entre les éléments récurrents du langage que l’écrivaine utilise et les thèmes qui se répètent dans ses récits construits sur l’autofiction. L’analyse est divisée en trois parties ou chapitres: “Scénarios”, “Storyboard” et “Voix off”. Dans la première partie, Piva expose et analyse les thèmes les plus importants qui composent l’œuvre de Delaume, à savoir, “La prostitution et le corps” (19), “Les drames familiaux”(22), les malades mentaux (29) qu’elle nomme“Les pyjamas bleus” et “Les contes de fées” (33). Cette partie se termine avec “L’univers littéraire” (46) de Delaume, incluant une réflexion sur“L’écriture”(46),“Les titres”(53) et“L’autofiction” (57). La deuxième partie, “Storyboard” se centre sur les éléments intertextuels qui parsèment les récits de l’écrivaine. Piva préfère adopter le terme “interdiscursivité” (61) car il s’agit du “déjà dit” plutôt que du déjà écrit, pas seulement en littérature mais à la télévision (séries t...

pdf

Share